CHANDIPRASAD DEOKERAN Vs. JUGULKISHORE DIXIT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a first appeal by Chandiprasad, defendant 2, against whom and other defendants in the suit the plaintiffs' claim is decreed by the trial Court. None of the other defendants has preferred an appeal against the decree but defendants 4, 5 and 6 (who are respondents 8, 9 and 10 in this appeal) have filed a cross-objection praying that as they were not personally liable for the plaintiffs' claim the decree passed against them personally should be set aside.

(2.) THE plaintiffs' case is that defendant 1, the firm 'Harcharan Ram Gulam at Itarsi, was a partnership firm of which defendants 2, 3 and Sitaram Rawat were partners and after the death of Sitaram in 1932 defendants 2 to 6 were the partners. This firm carried on business at Itarsi as commission agents and bankers. It used to receive deposits from persons who were on terms of intimacy with the partners. Plaintiff 1, who was one of such persons and who had full trust in the partners of the firm, began depositing his savings with the firm in the name of his deceased brother and brother's son from sambat 1979 (1923 A.D.) under condition that deposits should carry interest at 9 P.C.P.A. and the amounts should remain in deposit until the plaintiffs wanted to withdraw them.

(3.) WE are concerned in this appeal only with the defence of defendant 2, the appellant. His main defence was that on 22-10-1934 the defendant-firm was dissolved with the consent of all partners and it was settled that defendants 4 to 6 should take over all assets and liabilities of the firm and absolve defendants 2 and 3 from all liabilities to the creditors of the firm, and that plaintiff 1, who was one of the creditors of the firm, was aware of the fact of dissolution and, the terms thereof and accepted defendants 4 to 6 as his sole debtors and took promissory note from them for the amount due from the firm on 22-10-1934. Defendants 2 and 3 were absolved by plaintiffs from liability.